Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pptx-mcp

pptx-mcp

by 207studio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Show the cover thumbnail

pptx_thumbnail

Extract the cover thumbnail image saved inside a .pptx file, given a local path or http(s) URL. Use it to preview a PowerPoint presentation's cover without opening the file.

Instructions

Returns the cover thumbnail image that PowerPoint saved inside the .pptx, if there is one.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "pptx_thumbnail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesLocal path or http(s) URL of a .pptx file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is conditional ('if there is one'), implying a possible empty result, and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However it never says what the returned thumbnail looks like (image bytes, base64, path) or what errors/permissions apply, leaving meaningful behavioural gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, containing the verb, the resource, its origin inside the file, and the conditional caveat. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves the return format (critical given no output schema) and read-only/permission context unspecified. Sufficient to call, not sufficient to predict the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the sole 'source' parameter is fully documented as a local path or http(s) URL in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the cover thumbnail image that PowerPoint saved inside the .pptx.' An agent can tell this apart from pptx_outline and pptx_web_preview by the resource, though the description never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus pptx_outline or pptx_web_preview, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'if there is one' clause is a data condition, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools